RFK Jr. gets ‘informed consent’ about completely incorrect vaccines

Secretary of Health and Human Services Robert F. Kennedy Jr. recently tidy The centers for disease control and prevention to stop their “Wild to soft“Campaign that promotes the flu vaccine. Kennedy wants future vaccine communications to focus on” informed consent “, so it means giving information about people about adverse events associated with vaccines. That is a distorted opinion , one that demonstrates a broader confusion about informed consent and public health objectives. They process information on risks, and public health must promote collective benefits instead of fully focusing on individual autonomy.

The CDC archived campaign had intelligent visual metaphors, Grizzly bears transformed into stuffed bears, to transmit how vaccines reduce the severity of flu infections. The ads emphasized the functions that reduce vaccine damage, especially for vulnerable populations such as pregnant women, young children and immunocompromised. Kennedy wants to replace these persuasive messages with data on potential complications, despite the fact that the National Law of Inference Vaccines of 1986 already requires that medical care providers share that information with patients.

The promotion of greater “informed consent” sounds little controversial. After all, it is essential for ethical medical practice: patients should understand and accept any intervention they receive.

But mere information, especially about terrifying possibilities, tends not to make us better informed. Instead, it leads to predictable types of irrationality. When we listen to a shark attack in the news or look “Jaws“We get nervous about swimming in the ocean, although the chances of an attack are infinitesimally small. However, many of us send text messages while we cross busy streets despite the much greater risk of being hit by a car. This is the Reason why giving people a non -contextualized list of possible side effects of the vaccine is not the type of “informed consent” that is worth promoting How to give someone a list of everything that could go wrong on a plane without mentioning that flying is much safer than driving.

The messaging of the CDCs on the flu was much more informative than offering lists of rare side effects that could skew our risk perceptions. “Wild to Mild” transmitted what matters most: the power of vaccines to transform mortal threats into manageable problems.

Kennedy’s position also reflects a generalized confusion about public health ethics. For years, the public has been conditioned to see medical ethics through the individual choice lens and autonomy, even when those values ​​should sometimes be balanced with the importance of protecting the community. This confusion has been exacerbated by the bioethics revolution that began in the 1970s, which defended the informed consent and individual autonomy so effectively that these values ​​now dominate all discussions related to health.

Many Americans think of health mainly as an individual issue instead of social responsibility. But it is both. We cannot understand the ethics of immunization policies, or public responses to disease epidemics, if we trust only individualistic ethical concepts such as informed consent. Limited public dependence on these ideas can help explain why even modest public health measures can now face a fierce setback. For example, consider efforts to resist mosquito sprayhe Potable water fluorationeither School vaccine mandates.

The moment of Kennedy’s decision makes this philosophical confusion particularly dangerous. The absorption of the vaccine has decreased following the COVID-19 pandemic. For example, vaccination rates for Measles, paper and rubella (MMR) vaccine have decreased throughout the country and Only 23% of adults They have received recent COVID-19 reinforcements.

Replace persuasive public health messaging with dry risk disseminations, even if they are technically precise, it is not simply a policy change; It is a more broad ethical misunderstanding about the nature of informed consent and public health demands. If we want Americans to understand that public health cannot always differ to individual autonomy, we need a new bioethics revolution, one that is involved with medical care needs beyond the exam room and moves to the square public

Mark C. Navin, Ph.D., is a professor and president of Philosophy at the University of Oakland. Lainie Friedman Ross, MD, Ph.D., is a professor of Dean and president of the Department of Health Humanities and Bioethics and director of the Bioethics Center of MD Paul M Schyve at the University of Rochester. Jason A. Wasserman, Ph.D., is the distinguished professor of fundamental medical studies and founding director of the Moral Securities Center in Health and Medicine at the University of Oakland.